On udt phantoms do not use a licence.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: 31 January 2011 15:33 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? Phantoms use a seat. Always have. It really has nothing to do with what the phantom process is doing. It invokes a Universe session. I would suggest that if you don't want to use a Universe seat to accomplish an HTTP read you utilize cURL, Wget or some other OS level command line tool to perform the retrieval of the data. I do it all the time. If you are on a Unix/Linix based system you can even fire off your shell script as a background process just like a phantom. David Wolverton wrote: > Thanks for the feedback folks. The reason I was doing this query was to > review the 'reason' for the recent license changes that make CallHTTP > 'consume' a seat if it is used within a 'phantom' process. I didn't say WHY > I was interested get 'genuine' usage comments. Like many of you, I use > CallHTTP to get a piece of data from a remote machine (in my case, a > UniVerse server is validating a code from a UniData machine). But with a > recent update to UniVerse, we started having weird 'failures' -- turns out > it failed when all the 'seats' on the UniVerse machine were in use, and the > Phantom attempted a CallHTTP lookup. Blam! Dead phantom! > > I read all the uses people posted, and unless I was mistaken, no one was > seriously using CallHTTP for the purpose of serving multiple 'logical > users'. It appears everyone is using CallHTTP as a way to gather a piece of > data that could have just as easily been in a file on the local disk drive > if the machine you have could have limitless resources. In my use, and > apparently most of yours, to call CallHTTP 'interactive' would be the same > as calling a disk read 'interactive'. > > Here is the link for the 'business case' for making CallHTTP 'eat a seat' > when used in a Phantom. I wanted to see if the logic made sense for the > CallHTTP feature. My point to Rocket will be that someone could make a > phantom into a 'multi-user' server by using READ/WRITEs from Text Files -- > yet those are 'allowed' -- so trying to 'lock down' the server against a > POSSIBLE misuse of the license terms by removing needed features seems > counterproductive. UNLESS, that is, you're going to lock down EVERY > POSSIBLE way to misuse the system - Meaning, phantoms should not be able to > READ or WRITE at all. Heck, phantoms should not even EXIST since their > existence could lead to license misuse! > > https://u2tc.rocketsoftware.com/rsp-portal/rsp/solutionDetail.asp?id=0002370 > 1?sterm=iphantom&exact=&searchAction=doSolutionSearch.asp&catFilter=02n40000 > 000Tqmn&oType= > > Am I out on a limb here saying that CallHTTP should probably not cause a > Phantom to go iPhantom? I mean, Rocket can do whatever the heck they want, > it's their sandbox after all and we really have no choice but to suck it > up... But is the logic they employed flawed as I think it is? Or am I just > a loon? (Hmmmm.. really, the two questions are not mutually exclusive I > guess... But you get the point... ) I'm interested in comments on the > topic, if any. > > DW > > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA jschasny at gmail dot com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
